Chapter VI: , man could not have been created righteous. He might

have been created _perfect_, like a machine, or _innocent_, like a child, but to be _righteous_ requires his own co-operation, his freely choosing to act right, though he might act wrong. No doubt he was made in a condition perfectly suited for the _exercise_ of his free choice; but this seems included in God's final approval of the whole creation that it was all _very good_.

Thirdly we are told that man (and man alone) was created _in the image of God_. And once more the narrative is quite correct; for that which distinguishes man from the rest of creation is his _free will_, to which we have just alluded. And that which distinguishes God's action from all natural forces is also His _freedom_, (Chapter I.). So it is perfectly true to say that man was created _in the image of God_, since the special attribute which separates him from all else on this planet is precisely the attribute of God Himself.

And here we may notice in passing, that though God intended man to be both in His image and _likeness_; He only created him in His _image_ (vv. 26, 27). And the reason is probably that while image means resemblance in _nature_ (possessing free will, etc.), likeness means resemblance in _character_[23] (always acting right). Therefore, of course, though God wished man to be both in His image and likeness, He could only create him in His _image_; the other point, that of _likeness_ in character, depending (as just said) on the free will of the man himself.

[Footnote 23: The Hebrew word appears to be sometimes used in this sense. _E.g._, Ps. 58. 4; Isa. 13. 4. In one brief reference in Gen. 5. 1-2, when speaking of Adam, _likeness_ is used where we should have expected _image_; though even here it is not said that man was _created_ in God's likeness, but merely that he was so _made_.]

The fourth, and last point is that though the writer assigns to man this unique position, he does not give him, as we might have expected, a _day_ to himself, but _connects him with land animals_, as both appearing on the sixth day. And this also seems correct, for in spite of his immense superiority, man, in his physical nature, is closely connected with animals. Therefore the writer appropriately uses both words, _made_ and _created_, in regard to him. The former shows that in one respect (as to his body) he was evolved like the rest of nature; the latter, that in another respect (as to his spirit) he was essentially distinct.

(_C._) CONCLUSION.

We have now discussed the narrative at some length, and (omitting details) it shows three great periods of life. Each of these has a leading characteristic; that of the third day being vegetation; that of the fifth day fishes and birds, special mention being made of great sea-monsters; and that of the sixth day land animals, and at its close man. And though these groups _overlap_ to a large extent, yet speaking broadly, the three periods in Geology have much the same characteristics. The Primary is distinguished by its vegetation (_e.g._, the coal beds); the Secondary by its saurians, or great sea-monsters; and the Tertiary by its land animals, and at its close (now often called the Quaternary) by man. The harmony between the two is, to say the least, remarkable.

And the theory of Evolution which like geology, was unknown when the narrative was written, also supports it, as has been admitted by some of its leading exponents. Thus Romanes once said, and as if the fact was undisputed, 'The order in which the flora and fauna are said, by the Mosaic account, to have appeared upon the earth corresponds with that which the theory of Evolution requires, and the evidence of geology proves.'[24] We decide, then, that the order of creation, as given in Genesis, is in most cases certainly, and in all cases probably, correct.

[Footnote 24: _Nature_, 11th August, 1881.]

And this is plainly of the utmost importance, for the points of agreement between Genesis and science are far too many, and far too unlikely to be due to accident. They are far too many; for the chance against eight events being put down in their correct order by guesswork is 40,319 to 1. And they are far too unlikely; for what could have induced an ignorant man to say that light came before the sun, or that the earth once existed without any dry land?

Moreover, the general principles of the narrative, especially its pure Monotheism and its gradual development, are very strongly in its favour. And so are some individual points, such as the idea of creation, in its strict sense, being limited to matter, mind, and spirit. While our admiration for it is still further increased by its extreme conciseness and simplicity. Seldom, indeed, has such a mass of information been condensed into as few lines; and seldom has such a difficult subject been treated so accurately yet in such simple and popular language.

Now what conclusion can be drawn from all this? There seem to be only two alternatives: either the writer, whoever he was, knew as much about science as we do, or else the knowledge was revealed to him by God. And if we admit a revelation at all, the latter certainly seems the less improbable. And this, it may be added, was the opinion of the great geologist Dana, who said (after carefully considering the subject) that the coincidences between the narrative, and the history of the earth as derived from nature, were such as to imply its Divine origin.[25] We therefore conclude that this account of the creation was _Divinely revealed_.

[Footnote 25: Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1885, p. 224.]